1)

TOSFOS DH RAV ASHI

úåñôåú ã"ä øá àùé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains who does and does not have the same opinion as Rav Ashi.)

ìà ÷àé àãøá çñãà ãîå÷é ìä ëø' éäåãä åìôé îä ùàîø ì÷îï ãìø' éäåãä ùîðå ùì âéã àôéìå îãøáðï ùøé ìà àúéà àìà ëøáé îàéø

(a)

Observation: Rav Ashi is not commenting on Rav Chisda's statement, as he made that statement according to Rebbi Yehudah. According to the Gemara later that says that Rebbi Yehudah holds that the fat of the Gid is even permitted by Rabinic law, Rav Ashi must only be saying his statement according to Rebbi Meir.

åäà ãìà ÷àîø øá àùé àìéáà ãø"î

(b)

Implied Question: Rav Ashi did not say that his law is according to the position of Rebbi Meir. (Why didn't he clarify this as did Rav Chisda?)

îùåí ãááøééúà ãîééúé ìà äåæëø áä ø"î

(c)

Answer: This is because the Beraisa that Rav Ashi quotes does not mention Rebbi Meir.

åëï øáéðà ãîå÷é ìä áâéã äçéöåï ãäåé îãøáðï ìëàåøä ìà àúé ëøáé éäåãä

(d)

Observation: Similarly, Ravina who establishes that this is referring to the outer Gid which is prohibited mid'Rabanan does not seem to be stating this in accordance with the position of Rebbi Yehudah.

ãì÷îï îôé÷ ìä îäéøê ãôùéè ìéä áëåìéä éøê ìàôå÷é çéöåï ãìà åøáé éäåãä ãøéù äéøê äîéåîðú ùáéøê

1.

Proof: Later, he derives from "the thigh" that it is the Gid that is in the entire thigh, as opposed to outside the thigh. Rebbi Yehudah derives "the thigh" means the right thigh. (It would seem that Ravina's teaching is only possible because he does not understand "the thigh" as does Rebbi Yehudah.)

àí ìà ðàîø ãúøúé ùîòú îéðä ãáìàå äëé ãøéù ìéä ì÷îï (ãó öå:) ìãøùä àçøéúé åðéîà ãëåìäå îôé÷ îéðä

2.

Implied Question: If we say that Ravina holds one can derive both Rebbi Yehudah's lesson and his lesson from "the thigh," this is not a proof. This seems correct, as later (96b) the Gemara derives something else from "the thigh." It is therefore possible that multiple teachings are derived from this Pasuk.

2)

TOSFOS DH ELA

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not want to say the case is when he eats both Kzeisim together.)

åìà áòé ìàå÷åîé ùàëì ùðéäí ááú àçú ãäùúà ìà äåéà äúøàú ñô÷

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara does not want to say that the case is where he ate them at the same time which would therefore not be a doubtful warning (as he is clearly transgressing a prohibition with one of them). (Why not?)

ëé äéëé ãìà ðôùåè áòéà ãàëì ùðé æéúé çìá áäòìí àçã ãñ"ô àåúå åàú áðå (ìòéì ãó ôá:)

(b)

Answer: This is in order that we should not try to answer the question posed earlier (82b) regarding a person who eats two Kzeisim of Cheilev at once (see Tiferes Yaakov regarding how Tosfos thinks this could be proven).

3)

TOSFOS DH ELA

úåñôåú ã"ä ëîàï ãàîø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the proof from the Pasuk that Bnei Noach were commanded in Gid ha'Nasheh.)

åà"ú ãéìîà ìà ðàñø åàôéìå äëé äéå î÷ééîéï ëîå ùçéèä ã÷àîø ìéä ôøò ìäí áéú äùçéèä

(a)

Question: Perhaps it was not forbidden to Bnei Noach, but they still kept it? This would be similar to slaughtering, as he told him that he should open the slaughter area (of the animal) for them (even they were clearly not commanded to slaughter properly).

åé"ì îã÷àîø åäëï îùîò ãáìàå äëé ìà îùúøé

(b)

Answer #1: Since the Pasuk says, "and prepare" the implication is that it would not be permitted without this.

àé ðîé ôøò ìäå áéú äùçéèä äééðå ðçéøä ùðöèåå òì äðçéøä

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, "open the slaughter area" could mean to rip the animal open, as they were commanded to only eat after cutting the animal open (and not to eat Aiver Min ha'Chai).

4)

TOSFOS DH MIKA'AN

úåñôåú ã"ä îëàï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a Talmid Chacham should not go out alone at night, even in the city.)

àåîø ø"ú ããå÷à ð÷è úìîéã çëí îùåí ãîæé÷éï îú÷ðàéí áäí ëãàîøéðï â' öøéëéï ùéîåø îìê åú"ç åçúï

(a)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that this is specifically referring to a Talmid Chacham because demons are jealous of them. This is as we say that three require watching: A king, a Talmid Chacham, and a groom.

åäà ãàîøï áøéù ôñçéí (ãó á.) ìòåìí éëðñ àãí áëé èåá ëå' ãîùîò ëì àãí îãìà ð÷è úìîéã çëí

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (2a) says that one should always enter with "Ki Tov" referring to sunlight, indicating that everybody should only travel during the day. This is apparent from the fact that it does not only mention a Talmid Chacham.

äúí îééøé áøçå÷ îï äòéø îôðé äîëùåìåú åäìéñèéí

(c)

Answer: This is referring to traveling far away from the city due to the possible pitfalls and bandits.

91b----------------------------------------91b

5)

TOSFOS DH MEI'HACHA

úåñôåú ã"ä îäëà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos changes the text that most Sefarim have in our Gemara.)

áøåá ñôøéí ëúéá åéçáåù àú çîåøå

(a)

Text #1: In most texts it states, "va'Yachavosh Es Chamoro."

å÷ùéà ãäééðå ÷øà ãò÷ãä åùí ìà äéä éçéãé ãäéå ùðé ðòøéå òîå åéöç÷ áðå

(b)

Question #1: This is difficult, as this is the Pasuk of the Akeidah. In this Pasuk he was not alone, and in fact had two of his "boys" (Yishmael and Eliezer) with him in addition to Yitzchak.

åòåã ãàôéìå äéä éçéã àéï ìçåù îï äîæé÷éï ãùìåçé îöåä àéðï ðéæå÷éï

(c)

Question #2: Additionally, even if he was by himself there would be no reason for him to worry about demons, as people sent to do a Mitzvah are not damaged.

åòåã ãî÷øà ãò÷ãä éìéó áøéù ôñçéí (ãó ã.) âáé áãé÷ú çîõ ãìà àîøéðï æøéæéï î÷ãéîéï ìîöåä èôé îöôøà îãìà äùëéí àáøäí èôé îöôøà

(d)

Question #3: Additionally, the Pasuk about the Akeidah is quoted in Pesachim (4a) regarding Bedikas Chametz in order to prove that we do not say "Zerizim Makdimin l'Mitzvos" before morning. This is evident from the fact that Avraham did not wake up earlier than morning in order to do this Mitzvah.

åäéëé îåëç äúí ãéìîà ùàðé äúí ãäåé îùåí ùìà éöà éçéãé áìéìä åìëê ìà ä÷ãéí

1.

Question #3 (cont.): How is that considered a proof? Perhaps the case there was different, being that he did not want to go out alone at night? Perhaps this is why he did not leave earlier (and not because there is no Zerizim at night)?

ìëê ðøàä ãäëà âøñéðï åéùëí àáøäí áá÷ø àì äî÷åí åâå' (áøàùéú éè) åìà âøñéðï åéçáåù àú çîåøå

(e)

Text #2: It therefore appears that the text here should read, "va'Yashkem Avraham ba'Boker El ha'Makom etc." (Bereishis 19:27). We do not have the text, "va'Yachavosh Es Chamoro."

åîééúé ÷øà îñãåí ùäìê ìäúôìì òì äôéëú ñãåí ùäéúä áá÷ø åäéä ìå ìä÷ãéí ìäúôìì áìéìä àìà ùìà øöä ìöàú éçéãé áìéìä åäìê éçéãé ìäúôìì òìéäí åìà øöä ùéäà ùåí àãí òîå áùòú úôìä

1.

Text #2 (cont.): This is a Pasuk regarding Sedom, that Avraham went to Daven regarding the upcoming turning over of Sedom. His Davening took place in the morning, while he seemingly should have Davened the night before. It must be that he did not want to go out alone at night. He went alone to Daven for them, as he did not want anyone should be with him when he was Davening.

àé ðîé ìà äéä ùåí àãí øùàé ìøàåú áäôéëú ñãåí

2.

Text #2 (cont.): Alternatively, nobody was able to look at the turning over of Sedom.

åáôñçéí îééúé ÷øà ãò÷ãä ùìà äéä éçéãé àìà ãìà äéä öøéê ìä÷ãéí èôé îöôøà

(f)

Observation: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) indeed quotes the Pasuk regarding the Akeidah where he was not alone, and the point is that he did not have to wake up earlier than the morning (to fulfill "Zerizim etc.").

6)

TOSFOS DH KSIV

úåñôåú ã"ä ëúéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the simple explanation of the Pasuk.)

ìôé ôùåèå éù ìôøù ùì÷ç àáï àçú îàáðé äî÷åí

(a)

Explanation: The simple explanation is that he took one stone from amongst the various stones in that place.

7)

TOSFOS DH OLIN

úåñôåú ã"ä òåìéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that there seems to be an argument between two derivations in our Gemara.)

îùîò ùàåúí ùòåìéí äí ùéåøãéí

(a)

Explanation: This implies that the ones who were going up were going down.

åìòéì îùîò ùàçøéí äéå ã÷àîø òåìéï úøé åéåøãéï úøé ëé ôâòé áäãé äããé äåå àøáòä

1.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara earlier implies that these were not the same angels, as it said "going up - two, going down - two, when they meet they are four."

8)

TOSFOS DH KUB'YUSTUS

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷åáéåñèåñ

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the definition of a Kubyustus.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ âåðá ðôùåú

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to a kidnapper.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãàîø ááëåøåú (ãó ä.) ãàîø ÷åðèøé÷åñ äâîåï ìø' éåçðï áï æëàé îùä øáëí âðá äéä àå ÷åáéåñèåñ äéä àå ùàéðå á÷é áçùáåðåú äéä ðúï îçöä åðèì îçöä åîçöä ùìí ìà äçæéø åîä ùééê ùí âåðá ðôùåú

(b)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bechoros (5a) says that Kontrikus Hegmon said to Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai, "Moshe, your Rebbe, was either a thief, a Kubyustus, or he did not know math. He gave half and he took half, and he did not return an entire half." How does Kubyustus fit in this context?

åéù îôøùéí ã÷àé àùàìä øàùåðä ã÷àîø áôøèï ùì ìåéí àúä îåöà ë"á àìó åâ' îàåú åáëììï àé àúä îåöà àìà ë"á àìó àåúï â' îàåú ìäéëï äìëå åòì æä àîø ìéä ÷åáéåñèåñ ëìåîø âåðá ìåéí

(c)

Answer: Some say that he said this remark regarding his first question. He pointed out that when the Torah counts how many people (i.e. males from one month old) descended from each son of Levi, the total adds up to twenty two thousand three hundred. However, when it gives the number in general of how many people there were in the tribe of Levi, it says twenty two thousand. Where did the other three hundred go? Regarding this he said that Moshe was possibly a Kubyustus, meaning a kidnapper of Levites.

åîä ùìà àîø ìéä áùàìä øàùåðä îùåí ãäîúéï òã ùñééí ëì ùàìåúéå

1.

Answer (cont.): He did not say (i.e. present the possibility that Moshe was a) Kubyustus until he ended his second question because he was waiting until he finished all of his questions (to ask about the character of Moshe Rabeinu).

àáì òåã ÷ùä ãàîø áôø÷ äîåëø ôéøåú (á"á ãó öá:) åáôø÷ ÷îà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó éà.) ñîôåï áòáãéí ìéëà ðîöà âðá àå ÷åáéåñèåñ äâéòå ôéøåù ãøåáà äëé àéúðäå åäùúà åëé øåá òáãéí äí âåðáé ðôùåú

(d)

Question: However, there is another question. The Gemara says in Bava Basra (92b) and Kidushin (11a) that there is no claim that one did not realize the nature of the slave that he bought (in order to invalidate the sale). If the servant was found to be a thief or a Kubyustus, he deserves it (i.e. the sale is still valid). This means that most slaves are presumed to have these traits. Are most slaves kidnappers?

ìëê ðøàä ëîå ùôéøù ø"ç ÷åáéåñèåñ îùç÷ á÷åáéà

(e)

Answer: It therefore appears like Rabeinu Chananel explains that a Kubyustus is someone who plays with dice (i.e. gambles).

åäà ã÷àîø äëà éò÷á ìîìàê åëé ÷åáéåñèåñ àúä ùàúä îúéøà îï äùçø

(f)

Implied Question: Yaakov here said to the angel, "Are you a Kubyustus that you are scared of dawn?" (How does this fit the profile of a gambler?)

ìôé ùãøê îùç÷ á÷åáéà çééá ìëîä áðé àãí åîèîéï òöîå îôðé ðåùäå

(g)

Answer: It is normal for a gambler to owe many people money. He therefore hides (during the day) from his creditors.

9)

TOSFOS DH MESA'YEIYA

úåñôåú ã"ä îñééò

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the previous statement is a proof to Rav Chananel's teaching.)

ôéøåù áîä ùàåîø ùäîìàëéí àåîøéí ùéøä

(a)

Explanation #1: This means the fact that he said the angels says Shirah (songs of praise) supports Rav Chananel.

àé ðîé äà ã÷àîø ùìà äâéò æîðé îéåí ùðáøàúé ìåîø ùéøä òã òëùéå äëé ðîé ÷àîø øá çððàì ùàéðí øùàéï ìäøáåú áùéøä ã÷àîø àçã àåîø ÷ãåù åúå ìà åëï îñúîà ìà äéå àåîøéí ùéøä àìà ôòí àçú

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the fact that the angel said that it had not yet been his time to say Shirah until now supports Rav Chananel's statement that the angels are not allowed to sing a lot of Shirah. This is as Rav Chananel says that one says the word "Kadosh" and that is it. It also implies that they only said Shirah once.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF